GURMAIL SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 1.12.1989 whereby the application for extension of time for fixing court-fee of Rs. 20/- on the memorandum of appeal was declined.

(2.) THE suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of half share of the land was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 11.5.1989. The appeal against the said judgment was filed within a period of limitation which was required to be accompanied with a court-fee of Rs. 19.50. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Court on 17.7.1989, the appellants were directed to make good the deficiency of Court fee within 3 days and the notice was issued to the parties for 23.8.1989. It is the case if the petitioners that they had given Rs. 20/- to their counsel Shri Lokesh Puri to make good the deficiency in court-fee but the same was not affixed. It was only on 23.8.1989, they found that the court-fee which was given to their counsel has not been affixed on the memorandum of appeal. In these circumstances, the petitioner prayed for extension of time in depositing the court-fee. Learned first Appellate Court declined such application vide order impugned in the present revision petition primarily on the ground that no affidavit of the lawyer or his clerk has been filed to show that the amount of Rs. 20/- was paid by the appellants to make good the deficiency in court-fee.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Jabar Singh v. Shadi, 1978 P.L.R. 681, to contend that the Appellate Court is entitled to reject an appeal if the full court-fee has not paid. However, the said judgment does not lay down any law to the effect that the Court is not competent to extend the period to deposit the court-fee.